Knight v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM Order This order replaces the 5/30/12 memorandum order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/30/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12 C 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Alwanna Knight (“Knight”) has filed a document that she captions: MOTON [sic] FOR
RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT DUE TO ERROR, AND
OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF CASE BEFORE THE COURT, RESET HEARING DATE,
APPOINT COUNSEL. Unfortunately Knight has again failed to understand the basis for this
Court’s actions in her case. This Court had no knowledge whatever of the litigation involving
her godson Joe Louis Lawrence,1 who appeared in her absence at the scheduled May 16
hearing, and a copy of whose filing in the Court of Appeals she has attached as Group Ex. A to
her current filing. Instead this Court’s references to Knight’s lawsuit, both before and during the
May 16 hearing, have always been reflective of her submissions in this action.
To avoid having to reinvent the wheel, this Court attaches copies of its January 5 and
February 1 memorandum orders and its March 5 memorandum, all entered in this action. It is
Knight’s own initial filing that failed the requirement of the assertion of a non-frivolous claim (in
the legal sense) that is a precondition to the granting of in forma pauperis treatment under
Seventh Circuit law. This Court did not order Knight to pay the $350 filing fee as she asserts –

1

filing.

Indeed, this Court was unaware of the godson relationship until it received Knight’s current

it is rather that this Court applied this Circuit’s principle that in the absence of a grant of in forma
pauperis status a plaintiff can proceed with litigation only upon such a payment.
Meanwhile, on March 22 the Court of Appeals dismissed Knight’s attempted appeal for
nonpayment of the required docketing fee, eliminating any jurisdictional block to this Court’s
jurisdiction. This memorandum order therefore turns to Knight’s most recent filing.
As before, Knight’s current submission is littered with assertions and arguments that are
wholly beside the mark. Because she has not shown any rational ground for reconsideration,
Knight’s motion for reinstatement of her Complaint and for reconsideration of her motion for
appointment of counsel are denied. And because she has made no effort toward payment of
the filing fee in this District Court, this action is dismissed (as the January 5 memorandum order
had warned.)

___________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: May 30, 2012

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ALWANNA KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

12 C 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Alwanna Knight (“Knight”) has tendered a bulky pro se
submission against defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC
(“Aurora”), the character of which submission can best be gleaned
from its caption:
Complaint of Civil Rights Violations
Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations
Judicial Corruption/Conspiracy
Judicial Fraud/Extortion (Stealing Homes)
Disparate Treatment
And if that blunderbuss characterization, coupled with a $10
million demand, had left any uncertainty as to the dubious nature
of Knight’s claims, it would be dispelled by reading her
“Jurisdictional Statement”:1
Order entered: October 18, 2011
Statute: Unequal Protection of the Laws Violations,
Disparate Unequal Protection of the Laws, Civil Rights
Violations, Reverse Racial Discrimination, Judicial
Extortion, Judge Acting outside of their immunity
provisions, Anarchy, Jim Crowism, Treason, No

1

That “Jurisdictional Statement” is placed on a page that
is headed with a different case caption, obviously copied from a
state court mortgage foreclosure action brought by Aurora, in
which Knight as mortgagor is one of several defendants.

Jurisdiction on Defendant, Canon Ethics violations,
Judicial Extortion, Judicial Abuse of Discretion,
Racial Terrorism Conspiracy, Perjury, Chicanery,
Public, Political, Fraternal Corruption Conspiracies,
Perjury, Fraud on the Courts and other UnConstitutional Lawless Violations.
And here is the caption of still another document that Knight has
proffered to accompany her Complaint:
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING CIRCUIT JUDGE
DAVID B. ATKINS & ATTORNEYS DUTTON & DUTTON BANK
OFFICIALS CORROBORATION IN AN ORGANIZED CHAIN
CONSPIRACY “PERJURY” “FRAUD OF ALL SORTS”/CONTEMPT OF
COURT OTHER IRREGULARITIES REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT
INSTANTER
MANDATORY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING SEIZING HOME
This Court has waded through the welter of documents
provided by Knight, who has quite understandably not expended
(or, more accurately, wasted) the $350 filing fee needed to gain
entry to the federal courthouse door.

Instead she has

accompanied the other documents with two forms provided by this
District Court’s Clerk’s Office (an In Forma Pauperis Application
[“Application”] and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel
[“Motion”]), which she has completed with handwritten
information.

But well-established Seventh Circuit law requires

that any plaintiff who seeks in forma pauperis treatment must not
only show inadequate financial resources but must also assert a
nonfrivolous claim (in the legal sense).

Knight has obviously

flunked that latter requirement.
Accordingly the Application is denied, while the Motion is
denied without prejudice.

If Knight were to pay the $350 filing
2

fee on or before January 25, 2012, this action could go forward.2
But if she does not, this Court will be constrained to dismiss
both the Complaint and this action.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

January 5, 2012

2

As a caveat, Knight would be well advised to think hard
before making such an expenditure, for the nature of what she has
tendered to this point makes her ability to present a viable
claim seriously questionable.
3

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:120

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ALWANNA KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12 C 11
USCA No. 12-1132

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On January 5, 2012 this Court issued a memorandum order
(“Order”) explaining why pro se plaintiff Alwanna Knight
(“Knight”) was not entitled to in forma pauperis treatment, not
in financial terms but because of her failure to assert a
nonfrivolous claim (in the legal sense).

To that end this Court

had gone through Knight’s bulky documentation, which reflected
the mindset that everyone in sight (or perhaps even out of sight)
was conspiring against her.

Some notion of that may be gleaned

from some of Knight’s headings reproduced in the Order.
Although the Order’s rejection of in forma pauperis
treatment for Knight would have spared her the potential waste of
the $350 filing fee that would have had to be paid for this
action to go forward (see Order n.2), Knight’s subsequent action
has proved again the aphorism that “no good deed goes
unpunished.”

On January 17 (without this action having yet been

dismissed) she filed a notice of appeal that added this Court to
the coterie of judges and others who are assertedly conspiring

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/01/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:121

against her--Knight’s “Jurisdictional Statement” is replete with
scurrilous characterizations that are truly outrageous (though
perhaps not unexpected, given her mindset that everyone who
disagrees with her is out to do her in).
In any event, on January 25 Knight tendered to the Court of
Appeals her motion seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and
on the same day that court ordered the motion to be transferred
to this District Court for ruling.

Nothing has changed Knight’s

legal situation--her proposed appeal is just as frivolous in
legal terms as her Complaint was at the District Court level.
This Court accordingly denies Knight’s in forma pauperis motion,
reminding her (as the Court of Appeals’ order did) that to place
the same motion before that court she must refile her motion
there (see Fed. R. App. P. 24).

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

February 1, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:129

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ALWANNA KNIGHT,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.

No. 12 C 11
USCA No. 12-1132

MEMORANDUM1
Among the bizarre steps taken by pro se plaintiff Alwanna
Knight (“Knight”) in this action, the most recent is her filing
of an appeal even though this Court had not issued any
dispositive order in the case.

On January 5, 2012 this Court

issued a memorandum order that explained why Knight was not
entitled to in forma pauperis treatment, not in financial terms
but because of her failure to assert a nonfrivolous claim in the
legal sense.

Then on January 17 Knight filed a notice of appeal

that added this Court to the coterie of judges and others who are
assertedly conspiring against her, and on January 25 she tendered
to the Court of Appeals her motion seeking leave to appeal in
forma pauperis, whereupon that court ordered the motion to be
transferred to this District Court for ruling.

On February 1

this Court responded by issuing another memorandum order II”)

1

This memorandum repeats, often verbatim, some of the
things stated in the two earlier orders to which it refers. That
has been done simply to make clear the background that gives rise
to this memorandum.

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:130

that denied Knight’s in forma pauperis motion and concluded by
“reminding her (as the Court of Appeals’ order did) that to place
the same motion before that court she must refile her motion
there (see Fed. R. App. P. 24).”
All of this has placed this action in limbo because it would
appear that Knight’s attempted appeal has ousted this Court of
jurisdiction.

And whatever result may obtain in the Court of

Appeals in connection with any retendering of her in forma
pauperis effort there, the merits of Knight’s substantive claims
(or more accurately, what appears to be their lack of merit) will
not have been resolved at that point.

Accordingly this Court

respectfully requests that it be notified forthwith as and when
the Court of Appeals takes action on Knight’s appeal.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

March 5, 2012

2